Trump and Ojectivism
Posted by Tavolino 5 years, 8 months ago to Government
Trump and Objectivism
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
I’m puzzled by the formal Objectivist movement (ARI, TOS) and their complete disdain for President Trump. From the beginning they have never missed a chance not only to distance themselves, but also follow with a pompous negative certainty, without having the necessary relevant facts. Ironic, considering our foundations are based on proper identification (metaphysics) and validation (epistemology) before passing judgment or taking action (ethics). While I agree principles should never be compromised, context and perspective need to be objectively evaluated and applied, rather than a blind intrinsic repetition. Regarding Trump, there some broad hierarchal recognitions that I believe are very consonant with our philosophy.
Our fundamental basis is metaphysics, which is the proper identification of the nature of something. More than any past politician, however brash, Trump calls it like he sees it within his known knowledge. Be it the emotional motivations of political correctness, the lies of the “fake news,” the imbedded corruption, the recognition of the good and bad on the world stage (Israel, China, North Korea, Iran), the parasitical nations that feed off our teat, etc., etc.. The transparency of his thoughts have been unmatched and not hidden behind political speak, spins, alternate agendas, backroom deals or deceit. It is what it is.
As Dr. Jerome Huyler noted, “Trump has the sense of life of an individualist. His common sense - born of decades of experience as a businessman and dealing with politicians - tells him that taxes and heavy-handed regulations destroy economies. It is true, as Rand said that common sense is the child's method of thinking. But it is born of empirical experience,” the basis of knowledge acquisition.
His “America First” mantra should be championed by us. Rand had always said America will never regain its greatness until it changes its altruist morality. America First is just that. It’s not some blind German nationalism, but an attitude that America’s interests need to be selfishly upheld. This is a necessary fundamental to our ethics. He has attempted to keep open discussions with all, based around trade and fair exchange. Rand had said, “The trader and the warrior have been fundamental antagonist throughout history.” His movement away from aggressive wars, political globalism and multi-lateral agreements keep our own self-interests as paramount. It’s the application of the trader principle.
Lastly, his counter-punch mindset and approach is completely in line with our moral rightness of retaliation. He may prod or poke, but does not pull the proverbial trigger until he’s attacked, either with words or actions.
There is a dire threat that’s facing our country today with the abuses and power of the ingrained bureaucracy utilized for political purposes. It's imperative that all Americans unite, led by the voices of reason to identify and expose this fundamental threat to freedom. It's not about the false alternative of Trump or never Trump, it's about the American system and the fundamental role, purpose and responsibilities of government, regardless ones political persuasion.
As Objectivists, we need to continually apply our principles in the real world of what is, slowly moving it to where it should be. We need to descend from the “ivory tower” to the first floor of reality. Trump may not be able to articulate the principles, but are not what’s mentioned above consistent with our most basic and fundamental beliefs as Objectivists?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 24.
Is it because I did not write a bunch of subjective opinions or false characterizations?
First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill.
This is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism, not the "sport" of name calling in the name of "debate". Neither is it for haughty emotional refusal to respond to rational argument when called on it.
If you look at the HATRED the left has for Trump, I would say that the root of it is that he DOES stand in the way of their programs- which Is what I wanted.
Looking at the crop of 2020 democrats chomping at the bit to get rid of Trump, I think a democratic win in 2020 will result in a huge pent up demand for collectivism spilling over into actual programs.
He is a partial collectivist, and not very consistent one at that. There are much more collectivist politicians like the ones running as democrats for 2020. Hillary was a crook, plain and simple.
As to the 2020 group, I doubt I would like anything they would do actually, yielding them a percentage score of ZERO.
Yes this is what I'm saying.
Compared to passing something like Obamacare, revisioning agency rules is fiddling around the margins.
Conservatives always do this, claiming something big has been accomplished, but in reality we continue to drift towards statism.
We need to start holding conservatives, or anyone claiming to be an alternative to the left, to much higher standards.
Certainly these changes don't justify celebrating the Trump administration as "deregulatory" or anything of the sort.
The Fountainhead was a psychological novel showing the clash between the first hand thinker versus the second hander (as in Peter Keating). Atlas Shrugged was much more comprehensive in scope, incorporating the psychology but also all of philosophy in a novel with a more political plot.
If you are referring to Trump's old statement that he liked The Fountainhead, the problem is not Howard Roark, it's Trump's lack of understanding of what he said he liked.
The Enlightenment had largely rejected the religious mentality and implicitly endorsed egoism with its emphasis on reason, individualism and principles of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of one's own happiness, but lacked a complete defense of it in ethics.
That is how "2000 years" of cultural acceptance of altruism came to dominate politics today. Blaming it all on the "two party system" or the "Twelfth Amendment" is an anti-intellectual, a-historic, a-philosophical slogan adopted by conservatives.
Trump did not try to get a bill repealing Obamacare. He led the Republican "replacement" reversal in which they revoked their almost uniform promises to repeal Obamacare with the strategy to "replace" it with their own statism.
The "conservative" wing of the Supreme Court failed to reject Obamacare with Robert's last minute goofy reversal, and it's unlikely they will do any better the next time: Kavanaugh devised the original strategy adopted by Roberts.
There was some legislation during the first two years when Republicans still controlled the House: It was in the form of rejection of agency rules in force but for which the agencies had failed to notify Congress at the time they were imposed. The agencies had gotten sloppy in imposing rules and left themselves open to a law allowing Congress to revoke agency rule-making without changing the underlying law authorizing the rules.
The rest of it has been agency revisions to rules. Some of it has resulted in relief much better than "fiddling around the margins", but all such reform is temporary, subject to reversal by a future administration.
Despite Trump's own anti-intellectual, emotional thinking he has appointed people as advisors and to run the agencies that are better than he is, with a better understanding -- namely, some of the better conservatives with a pro-private property rights emphasis. This has resulted in a temporary partial relief from many regulations.
If Trump were a "complete collectivist" he would not have done that, and neither would the explicit collectivists like Hillary, who would have been far worse on policy. This is still a mixed system, and so is Trump, not "complete collectivism". It is the Democrats who are progressively embracing that.
Even Trump's "tax cuts", to the extent they were cuts at all, were defended in the name of the national economic good, not to allow individuals and businesses to keep more of their own money. To the extent that real cuts helped people, it is better (temporary) policy, but he further endorsed and entrenched collectivist "nationalist" premises that will increasingly used against us long after Trump is gone, and his "tax cuts" already deliberately raised taxes on some for ideological motives.
Trump himself employed those premises defend and impose higher taxes on wealthy individuals, conceding the demagoguery of the left as a "carrot" for other changes. And he deliberately further intensified strategic principle of tax policy as a means to punish politically targeted individuals, namely, residents of high tax states likely to vote against him in the electoral college, reversing a century old precedent that income taxed away by state and local government is not in fact income and should not be taxed again by the Federal government.
His worst collectivist conservative policies are in line with the populist conservatives and Republican trends for years, such as accelerating government spending and deficits without even verbal lip service against it, anti-immigration, religious influences in government, and most recently "anti-trust" and other controls as a weapon against industries they don't like. The "tea party" movement is now dead, with conservatives willingly being whatever Trump adulation wants them to be.
Trump's "regulation of immigration" is in many ways good -- trying to enforce immigration laws against a flood of unrestricted entry by anyone. But his motives are not all good, such as restrictions for economic protectionism, and his complete lack of immigration reform of the bureaucratic nightmare for legitimate immigration. The defense that he is only against "illegal immigration" is true but begs the question of what should be legal.
It's all a worsening trend into collectivism and statism, but not yet "complete collectivism", which is still the goal most fervently sought by the left with conservative Republicans not far behind over time.
I'll take up issue with this:
"We should be encouraging rational discussion and independent thinking to better understand the application of the principles."
On May 30 a letter of intention was posted to the Federal Register by The State Department. The statement is regarding the formation of a Commission on Unalienable Rights; with the questioning as to why "We" have departed from the intention of this idea as stated in The Declaration of Independence.
This past Saturday I had a chance to exchange with an old Washington insider that I've been acquainted with for about 20 years. He was very aware of the posting even though his activity was during Nixon admin. I asked if this had been precipitated by The Sec of State's office. He replied "No"...this came from the president's office.
I've been working on an iteration of objective, self-evident, hierarchical values based principally on the Objectivist's Ethics and supporting explanatory gaps in Rand's essay....she had a couple. The "gap" fillers come from sociological / anthropological sources who were exemplary educators despite "our" compulsory school system. John Gatto, John Holt, Morris Massey, and interestingly, the first Objectivist I've seen in print....Lao Tsu.
I've sent one message to the contact person listed on the Letter of Intent, and as yet no response. If an authorship of my discovery should be used as a statement of Operable Interpretation of human relations we shall need to rewrite the Constitution. I can see many obstructions to this endeavor. Notwithstanding, I'm talking with the youngsters as they are the future potential adoptees of a secular objective values declaration.
Thanks for the posting.
Load more comments...